MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503468264 · doi:10.14288/hfjc.v6i4.150

Mother knows best? Childrens physical activity levels and preferences.

2013· article· en· W1503468264 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Bassett‐Gunter, Scott T. Leatherdale

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)PerceptionDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPhysical activityMedicineSocial psychologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Parents are the gate-keepers to young childrens physical activity (PA) and knowledge of their childrens PA levels and preferences may impact the PA opportunities they provide. Purpose: The current study examined childrens PA preferences (considering sex and grade variations) and the discrepancy between childrens preferences and parents perceptions. Method: Cross-sectional data were collected from 2,363 children (grades 1-4) and their parents. Children reported their PA preferences and PA levels relative to other students. Parents reported perceptions of their childrens PA preferences and levels. Results: Regardless of sex or age, the large majority of children like playing sports (95%), although less parents perceived that their children like playing sports (75%). Further, most children reported that they were less active than other children (69%), while the majority of parents perceived that their children were more active than other children (53%). Conclusion: Parents perceptions of childrens PA levels and preferences are often not aligned with the preferences of their children. Inaccurate parental perceptions have the potential to be detrimental with regard to the PA opportunities parents provide for their children.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207